I feel sorry for you runner, your comments show that it is you that has a narrow minded view of the world.

Environmentalism is not the domain of ‘socialists’ - just look at Turnbull, Howard or even the Californian governor.

I also remember that law abiding and bible believing people were seriously implicated in fascist Germany.

You come across as a self-righteous bigot, not unlike Boaz.

One thing I feel more than ever. We need a bill of rights to provide a legal bulwark against encroachments from governments federal and state, from corporations and, perhaps most important, from religions and other ideologies including political correctness.

Bugsy,

Sorry didn’t mean to go over your head. My analogy is probably too unsubtle to protect anyone anyway so I’ll be more explicit. In the beer gut comment I was referring to the fact that both government ministers/ politicians and Christian fundamentalists are supporting the same issues. Clearly pollies equate with fundies as much as someone with a beer gut equates with superfit football players. Does the idea of a 'Christian' politician attending strip clubs rather than Churches really surprise you? It was one way in which I attempted to show that your attempt to cut down the majority was invalid because the issue clearly doesn't just involve fundies irrespective of how Christians break up.

The other point I was making is that if you want to be applying sound reasoning not just a trick you need to apply the same reasoning to other groups involved. For example not all atheists support abortion, gay marriage/adoption, etc. etc. Would you expect an atheist right winger/conservatist to agree with Christians on the relevant issues? Is it just me or do both major parties lean toward conservatism? I bet they have done their homework so if I’m correct then that hints at the attitudes in the electorate.

An atheist boy at my high school felt comfortable proclaiming that gays should be shot. Scary and extreme attitude toward gays. I have also noticed people using the word gay as an insult. “That is so gay”. Again that is way more extreme and more akin to racial discrimination rather than the Christian outlook on gay marriage / adoption. Christians oppose it due to concerns about the effect on traditional marriage and the effect on children.

In reality you can’t use Church going as a definite determinant of attitude on the relevant issues and we don’t even have a crude unreliable measure like that of attitudes among atheists. Currently on the face of it the majority are Christian because they say so and denying a Christian voice but arguing for the legitimacy of a Muslim voice in similar circumstances reflects an unfortunate attitude toward Christians.

"How do you figure that?"

You exhibit symptoms of putting blind faith in politically correct dogma. If I thought you considered yourself narrow minded I wouldn't have tried to reinforce that observation. If you already recognized the problem you would have dealt with it.

"It's people like you who raise myths and legends to the status of reality - which is fine, but I object when ... my tax dollars go to support religious schools to the detriment of state schools."

Right back at you regarding the myths and legends. I do have mixed feelings about the school thing though. On one side Christians pay tax too and shouldn't be discriminated against. On the other side the government hold the purse strings. Further, an American lawyer I knew expressed a unique theory. He said that American Indians used to suffer like Australian Aborigines until the government stopped trying to help them and left them alone to help themselves. He held that a similar approach should be taken here. Albeit without a firm opinion I have wondered about that and wondered if tough love would help Christians. As Bugsy pointed out a lot of Christians don't even attend Church. Perhaps the independence and need to work together to keep Christian schools going might help strengthen Christians.

"Did you actually read what I wrote?"

Yes you were willing to accept that if Muslims were in the position of Christians it would be democratic for them to wield their power. Why not Christians?

"No thanks. In my experience, those who have imaginary friends with whom they like to converse tend to be children, or to be 'psycho' rather than 'psychic'. In either case, I have no interest in playing games with you."

Your choice re game. I won't hound you with inferences. But I have to point out that I have no imaginary friends. Just a belief in a God like most of the world's population that can't legitimately be compared. Your political correctness has locked you into some bizarre perspectives.

mjpb: "ou exhibit symptoms of putting blind faith in politically correct dogma"

What "politically correct dogma" is that, exactly? How do I put "blind faith" in it?

"Right back at you regarding the myths and legends"

Really - and to what myths and legends do I ascribe the status of reality? I call them myths and legends, which means they're not real.

"...you were willing to accept that if Muslims were in the position of Christians it would be democratic for them to wield their power"

Not quite. I said that "in the extremely unlikely event of Muslims becoming a majority in Australia (or any other Western country), then they would be quite entitled to seek to change the law to conform to their mediaeval religion."

Democracy means "rule by the people". In the hypothetical situation of a clear majority of any electorate wanting to change or institute laws of any kind, then democratically they would be entitled to seek to do so. Under the Australian system, that should mean electing representatives to Parliament who openly support such laws when they stand for election.

However, under the current situation we have a minority of the electorate (i.e. fundamentalist Christians) seeking to influence parliament by devious means - including via Christian MPs who are elected as members of supposedly secular parties, increasingly powerful lobby groups like the ACL, or by underhand mobs like the Exclusive Brethren hypocritically and deceptively funding electoral advertising and lobbying sympathetic politicians.

That's why I'm more concerned about the political activities of Christian fundies than of Muslim loonies in this country. If Christians want Christian laws and government, they should vote for overtly Christian parties like Family First.

But of course they don't do that generally, because they know they haven't a prayer of succeeding if they're honest about it.

HEY Q & A.. fair go on the "self righteous bigot" bit eh...

*BD's verbal missile defense radar is online*

Thats a personal attack not a debate contribution.

Why do you confuse 'passion and confidence' with 'self' righteousness?

I don't have much to say about myself, in 'righteous' terms.. not at all, apart from Paul who claimed the crown originally, I'm the 2ic of the chief of sinners.

My comments and points are about a truth which exists quite firmly irrespective of myself. While I seek under God to live that truth, by His indwelling Spirit, it isn't "about me" please.

CJ... you hypothesized that "if (though unlikely) Muslims became a majority here they would be entitled to change the law etc"

But there is more to that issue than simply majority. All it takes is for 'any' group (even Christian, and yes, we do think about this) to have a grip on certain key marginal seats, where the elections generally are closely contested and they can virtually dictate to the party which seeks their support.

The first issue on the Muslim agenda, would be 'hate speech'.. implement laws which enshrine the illegality of criticizing Mohammad and Islam. Thats "Political Step 1". They absolutely have to get that law passed first, because as you would have seen MANNNNNY times here, I and Kactuz and others, have drawn attention to the many
-cruelties,
-mass killings,
-political assasinations,
-intimidations,
-self justification via 'revelations' of convenience
-Sexual involvment with a child

associated directly with Mohammad.... and you know the reaction.

FH. will say "you are mistrepresenting Islam" (whereupon I reply, I'm misrepresenting HIS Islam :)
the politically correct will say "you are spreading hate"
Pericles will say "You are part of 'the problem'"

But in Victoria, we have actually LIVED the tyranny of such laws being passed and seen how they are selectively applied. For us, it is the 'HERE and NOW'...not some hyperthetical future event.